This lone incident doesn't really say much about the gun debate, except that it is one of 11,000 homicides involving guns.

The problem is why is it occurring in the first place. It has nothing to do with guns or the gun debate, yet I can guarantee you the anti-gun crowd will use this as "justification" of why government should further abridge liberty. With no meaningful concern for why it is happening. The availability of guns isn't the cause.

you have a crazy number of homicides and some huge percentage is done with guns. Are saying that guns are COMPLETELY irrelevant? I have said repeatedly above that there are other issues (possibly bigger ones), but this sacred cow is being spared.

you have a crazy number of homicides and some huge percentage is done with guns. Are saying that guns are COMPLETELY irrelevant? I have said repeatedly above that there are other issues (possibly bigger ones), but this sacred cow is being spared.

Alcohol isn't the issue when people abuse it. I'm saying my right to responsibly use weapons should not be infringed because a relative few people cannot be responsible with them (otherwise we have a long list of far more dangerous items to ban)._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

you have a crazy number of homicides and some huge percentage is done with guns. Are saying that guns are COMPLETELY irrelevant? I have said repeatedly above that there are other issues (possibly bigger ones), but this sacred cow is being spared.

Yeah, well we protect religious freedoms here, too._________________Freedom is the oxygen of the soul. -Moshe Dayan

It only needs one to bring a war and those without swords can still die on them. -Tolkein

This lone incident doesn't really say much about the gun debate, except that it is one of 11,000 homicides involving guns.

The problem is why is it occurring in the first place. It has nothing to do with guns or the gun debate, yet I can guarantee you the anti-gun crowd will use this as "justification" of why government should further abridge liberty. With no meaningful concern for why it is happening. The availability of guns isn't the cause.

you have a crazy number of homicides and some huge percentage is done with guns. Are saying that guns are COMPLETELY irrelevant? I have said repeatedly above that there are other issues (possibly bigger ones), but this sacred cow is being spared.

I will give you this much: being highly effective weapons, I believe guns must contribute to a higher rate of homicides, all other things being equal. This cannot be demonstrated empirically, because all other things will never be equal.

However, the lethality of firearms is a cost worth bearing, in exchange for what they provide: including the ability to effectively defend one's self, family, home and property; the ability to act as a deterrent to invasion or to mount an effective insurgency in the event of invasion; the ability to deter government tyranny (i.e., to deter full blown totalitarian violent suppression of peaceful protests, civil disobedience, and passive resistance, by creating the possibility of armed insurrection, should the government someday go too far).

We get all that, in exchange for accepting that, all other things being equal (which is an artificial assumption) violent crime here will tend to produce slightly more fatalities than violent crime elsewhere. I'll take that exchange any day, particularly if it comes with the recognition that other things actually causing violent crime must actually be dealt with (instead of given lip service).

This man here, Tyree Carter, you would make laws that say he can't have a gun (and he'd have one anyway), and then pat yourself on the back for having made the world a better place. Then when he shot this baby, you'd say, "See! This is why we must take guns away!". Then you'd go home and beat your meat, feeling like you had proved your case.

Instead, I say we find out why Tyree did this, and address those problems, and stop letting the authoritarian collectivists con us into believing that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is going to prevent such things.

[Edit: I got this guy mixed up somebody else. Tyree Carter was the guy who was jacking off in the library. This guy's name is De’Marquise Elkins. ]

The real issue here is that in order to effectively combat the real problem we would have to give up privacy in a way that we are simply not ready to accept. It is therefore much easier to talk about banning guns, that way we don't have to deal with the necessary privacy intrusions that would be required to deal with those with mental health issues._________________Ware wa mutekinari.
Wa ga kage waza ni kanau mono nashi.
Wa ga ichigeki wa mutekinari.

"First there was nothing, so the lord gave us light. There was still nothing, but at least you could see it."

The real issue here is that in order to effectively combat the real problem we would have to give up privacy in a way that we are simply not ready to accept. It is therefore much easier to talk about banning guns, that way we don't have to deal with the necessary privacy intrusions that would be required to deal with those with mental health issues.

Part of the problem is the overreaction to mental health. If I break a leg, it isn't permanent. So seeking mental health shouldn't permanently disqualify people from having / obtaining guns. If I get a prescription for pain killers, I'm most likely told to not drive. If I do and kill someone, my prescription (and use of it) will become known. I don't see a significant difference when treating mental health._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

Could it be that you draw a line at baby killing, but roughing up old ladies is defensible on philosophical grounds?

Frankly, i don't have to do any better, as you have said enough to make it that easy.

The funny thing is you probably think you have an effect.

He's intellectually consistent and honest. That is effective.

At making him look foolish. I mean really, this guy wants to argue that there is some kind of moral absolute and yet there are countless examples of people who have possessed a morality that he would probably disagree with who actually had the power to make the law what they wanted. The landed nobility of the C.S.A(Confederacy) wanted to codify their slave property as essentially inviolable....How did that work out for them? Even if the civil war had not occurred it would not have been surprising if there had been an armed slave insurrection at some point. The slaves wouldn't really give two shits about the morality of slave owners that said it was permissible to own another individual. The only thing that would matter is their ability to put down the revolt if it ever occurred, not what their constitution or other legal documents said._________________Ware wa mutekinari.
Wa ga kage waza ni kanau mono nashi.
Wa ga ichigeki wa mutekinari.

"First there was nothing, so the lord gave us light. There was still nothing, but at least you could see it."

I have said that beating up little old ladies because you don't share their political, religious, or moral views is wrong.
You disagree.
There really isn't much else to say.
No one of consequence cares who or what you might think looks foolish.

The real issue here is that in order to effectively combat the real problem we would have to give up privacy in a way that we are simply not ready to accept. It is therefore much easier to talk about banning guns, that way we don't have to deal with the necessary privacy intrusions that would be required to deal with those with mental health issues.

Mental health is not the issue either; it's only one of many reasons people behave violently toward others. It does play a role in a significant number of mass violence cases, but mass violence is only a tiny part of the problem. Few killers end up in psychiatric hospitals. It just makes us feel better to think "only a crazy person would do that". The truth is that most violent criminals are no more ill than the average person.

Also, we don't have to give up privacy. The idea that everybody who is "mentally ill" must be denied weapons is absurdly ignorant. Everybody is mentally ill to some degree, and the world would better off if people admitted it and dealt with their issues. Who is more of danger to the public: somebody who has recognized and sought help for their issues; or somebody who has not? Yet the idea here is to make a big list of all the people who done so and take a giant shit on them?

Ridiculous. Any politician considering the idea should be tarred and feathered. This is nothing but people looking for a silver bullet, some kind of easy legislative fix.

What we can and should do, however, is to start analyzing the role mental illness plays. Doctors should keep records, and those records should be confidential. But when somebody commits a crime, it should be possible for an analyst to query that data and use it in an anonymized fashion (e.g., to assemble data for statistical analysis).

That kind of analysis doesn't violate anybody's privacy, and it would allow us to begin developing and testing hypotheses that might actually be useful and constructive (such as identifying specific disorders or conditions which should make someone ineligible to own or carry a firearm).

The NIH or CDC should be getting a fat line item in their budget to investigate this and other possible causal factors (e.g. violent video games, violence in media, bad or inadequate parenting, child abuse, childhood bullying, drug and alcohol use, genetic predisposition to violence, lackanookie disease, educational failure, social isolation, etc. Instead, Obama has put Joe Biden on it.

All we've got are theories. There is little data, biased analysis, and people's preconceived notions (many rooted solely in fear and ignorance), and there are politicians pandering and demagoging. We need an adequately funded scientific approach, so we can make informed decisions about this. What we don't need are bigoted knee-jerk reactions that waste billions of dollars, violate the rights of half the country and accomplish nothing.

Last edited by Bones McCracker on Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:27 am; edited 1 time in total

I have said that beating up little old ladies because you don't share their political, religious, or moral views is wrong.
You disagree.
There really isn't much else to say.
No one of consequence cares who or what you might think looks foolish.

No I didn't what I said is that they were both wrong. That old lady didn't need to be there filming people, and the other lady didn't need to get into a fight with her because situations like that are TOTALLY predictable. No one is *right* here. I don't need to defend anyone to see how the situation could have and ultimately did degenerate the way it did._________________Ware wa mutekinari.
Wa ga kage waza ni kanau mono nashi.
Wa ga ichigeki wa mutekinari.

"First there was nothing, so the lord gave us light. There was still nothing, but at least you could see it."

I side with the assailant on this. Filming people going in or out of a medical facility is an invasion of privacy, whether it's public space or not. It also implies the intent to publicize the film, which falls into the same realm as that bitch who tried to "twitter-shame" the guys telling dirty jokes at the tech conference. Little old lady or not, she's being a twat, and I hope the judge is lenient with the assailant on the basis that the camera lady's actions constituted harassment.

This man here, Tyree Carter, you would make laws that say he can't have a gun (and he'd have one anyway), and then pat yourself on the back for having made the world a better place. Then when he shot this baby, you'd say, "See! This is why we must take guns away!". Then you'd go home and beat your meat, feeling like you had proved your case.

Instead, I say we find out why Tyree did this, and address those problems, and stop letting the authoritarian collectivists con us into believing that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is going to prevent such things.

would he though? In britain we have a very high number of stabbings, and a lot less murders. It's much harder to get a gun, so people use knives.

The real issue here is that in order to effectively combat the real problem we would have to give up privacy in a way that we are simply not ready to accept. It is therefore much easier to talk about banning guns, that way we don't have to deal with the necessary privacy intrusions that would be required to deal with those with mental health issues.

Part of the problem is the overreaction to mental health. If I break a leg, it isn't permanent. So seeking mental health shouldn't permanently disqualify people from having / obtaining guns. If I get a prescription for pain killers, I'm most likely told to not drive. If I do and kill someone, my prescription (and use of it) will become known. I don't see a significant difference when treating mental health.

Mental health is much harder to diagnose and treat. You can't simplify to breaking a leg because it is inherently more complex. We have been able to treat a broken leg for millenia. not true for mental health issues.

I side with the assailant on this. Filming people going in or out of a medical facility is an invasion of privacy, whether it's public space or not. It also implies the intent to publicize the film, which falls into the same realm as that bitch who tried to "twitter-shame" the guys telling dirty jokes at the tech conference. Little old lady or not, she's being a twat, and I hope the judge is lenient with the assailant on the basis that the camera lady's actions constituted harassment.

What then of the man who films a cop shaking him down?

People must own their actions.
If you walk in to a clinic, or tell a dirty joke.

Shaming mechanisms are either acceptable, or not.
And people who try to shame about military interventions, visiting a whorehouse, dumping chemicals into the river, etc. should be held to the same standard.

Harassment only attaches if a particular individual is being followed.
Standing outside a clinic is not that.

Aha! The old People of Walmart page. What shall we do with people who take those photos?
Open season on those guys? Leniency for ass kicking? Great. What an egotistical Pandora's box to open.

Have your opinion as you will, but condoning this have downstream consequences.

Privacy is not freedom from shame, and every adult really should know better.

I side with the assailant on this. Filming people going in or out of a medical facility is an invasion of privacy, whether it's public space or not. It also implies the intent to publicize the film, which falls into the same realm as that bitch who tried to "twitter-shame" the guys telling dirty jokes at the tech conference. Little old lady or not, she's being a twat, and I hope the judge is lenient with the assailant on the basis that the camera lady's actions constituted harassment.

Wasn't there a thread on pre-crime here recently?
While the jury can acquit for any reason, it would come off like the O.J. verdict.

Implied intent to publish is a novel theory.
Justifying pre-emptive assault on that basis makes it harder to agonize over a pre-emptive war. It really lowers the bar.

What then of journalists? Are investigative reports now less legally protected? Should reporters who expose shameful, embarrassing, or criminal behavior be subject to harassment torts?

Why shouldn't I be free from assault filming the local sluts going in to the STD clinic? I might want to track them down.

I don't get your point. Guns are legal in Georgia, and some scumbag shot a baby. Does this mean guns are bad? As you point out, this asshole could have killed the baby without a firearm, and you want to conclude guns *aren't* bad. you are right. This lone incident doesn't really say much about the gun debate, except that it is one of 11,000 homicides involving guns.

I guess you prefer 11,000 homicides with knives or swords?_________________"It's ok, they might have guns but we have flowers." - Perpetual Victim

I don't get your point. Guns are legal in Georgia, and some scumbag shot a baby. Does this mean guns are bad? As you point out, this asshole could have killed the baby without a firearm, and you want to conclude guns *aren't* bad. you are right. This lone incident doesn't really say much about the gun debate, except that it is one of 11,000 homicides involving guns.